But that is because Brian is seriously obtuse. Even though I used the word "primarily" as a qualifier, he concluded that because I did not list every known cause of genetic mutation, that I was claiming that background radiation was the single cause. I was not, but simply pointing that out is not enough with Brian. It has to be spelled out, repeatedly.

One can hope that at least that much is clear. And it should be obvious that Darwinian evolutionism is not about the present, but the past, when cellular insults by man-made pollutants and chemicals was not an issue in mutations.

As for your assertion that mutations cause beneficial changes in DNA, where exactly is just ONE study that demonstrates how said mutations creates actual improvements in human intelligence?

Just ONE study.

Rather, the contrary is the norm. Mutations produce aberrations such as microcephaly, an abnormally small head, which is the result of an undersized brain. As for the number of different genes that contribute to proper brain development, a 2002 article in Science News says this:

Bruce Lahn, an HHMI investigator at the University of Chicago, is looking for genes that drove human-brain evolution. He agrees that the newly identified microcephaly genes cry out for further study. Still, Lahn cautions against prematurely crediting the genes for the human brain's impressive cerebral cortex.

"Very little, if anything, is known about the genetic basis of brain evolution. It's a complete blank slate," he says. "It's not too far out to speculate that evolution may have played on these genes to select for a larger brain. The caveat is that there are many such genes. It takes thousands, if not tens of thousands, for the brain to develop properly."

It takes thousands, if not tens of thousands of properly-working genes acting in perfect concert with one another for a brain to develop properly. This is a perfect example of irreducible complexity at work.

You people act like a mutation just happens, a superior brain is produced, and voila, out walks a man. No such thing, except in the comic books. As far as what high school students "know," please. These poor kids are brainwashed from the cradle, and are taught what to think, not how to think.

I can show you numerous articles on how mutations produce brain-impaired people, but I notice in advance that you will not be able to show me ONE article that will buttress your fantastic claims. Just ONE.

You people don't know the difference between imagination and reality.

See:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_162/ai_94774391/print. If this does not work, see:

Sizing up the brain: mutations that produce small brains may reveal how human intelligence evolved, by John Travis.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Wow, John. Almost 250 words spent on the definition of the word "primarily". What a fantastic waste of space.

All of these are simply projecting an expectation of "intelligence" upon a system that works without any. Take those words out of your argument and you're left with something that's actually readable.

>Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc)
>primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can
>morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative
>addition of DNA code.

John, the "guiding external agent" is easy: the environment.

I'm not sure why you're being as thick-headed as you are about this - high school students can understand this stuff. Mutations in DNA (and we are ALL WELL AWARE of the causes now) cause changes in an organism. Whether they are harmful, neutral, or beneficial depends on the environment, whereby the process of natural selection will allow the beneficial mutations to breed through and create organisms that carry the same mutation.

Given hundreds of thousands of these generations, it would certainly make sense that the mammals that mutated with a larger brain size (and thus perhaps a better capacity to survive) would be able to breed through.

Why is this so difficult for you? This has been explained to you before.

>Neither nature nor species provides it, so how does it come about?
>The obvious answer is that it does not. And it does not, because Darwin
>was wrong, and his devotees are wrong. It is really just that simple.

Sounds like your conclusion is backwards, John. In order to conclude that DNA "can't mutate in a positive fashion", you need to assume that Darwin and his "devotees" are wrong... and it's anything but "obvious". (why, pray tell, IS it "obvious"?)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not a scientific conclusion.

What, exactly, IS preventing from DNA mutating with beneficial results? Why not? Just saying "it doesn't work like that" doesn't cut it. I believe both Brian and I would like some references to some peer-reviewed and published documents that categorically state that DNA mutations cannot be beneficial to an organism is any way.

This is exactly what you are arguing, and it stands directly in the face of modern science as it is understood today.